DNI Testimony – Impeachment Inquiry (Part 4)
As we continue watching how the Impeachment Inquiry develops and plays out, we turn today to the DNI Testimony. We have ideated and designed a scorecard for informational appraisal. The Digital Archivy Scorecard evaluates information sources and information flows and provides grades in fjve different criteria: Assessment, Identity, Description, Priority, and Security Classification.
In this way, we can assess the value of content based on provenance, function, significance and accuracy. This relates directly to an assessment of the trustworthiness and significance. With that in mind, today we look at three additional pieces of information and evidence:
- in-person testimony of the Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI), James Maguire;
- letter written by Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG), Michael Atkinson; and
- White House Memo of the Conversation.
Each ones of these information sources provides data that can be used to evaluate the entire ecosystem. This holistic perspective takes into consideration the content of the information as well as showing the relationships between the documents themselves, and the people involved in creating the information ecosystem. Of course, at present, we have not yet seen the “verbatim” transcript of the 33 minute phone call.
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY: DNI TESTIMONY OF ACTING DIRECTOR MAGUIRE
On September 26, Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire testified before the House Intelligence Committee. He testified for more than three hours to discuss the complaint and the allegation of wrongdoing. The White House released a declassified version (the White House Memo) minutes before the hearing began. In his opening statement, Director Maguire described his experience and military service and also stated his support for the whistleblower and for protections.
Acting Director Maguire is new to the position. The phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President, which led to the whistleblower’s complaint, occurred on July 25, 2019. Three days after the phone call, on July 28, former DNI Director Dan Coats announced that he would resign in August. Coats was one of the longest serving national security members of the Trump Cabinet. Needless to say, with years of professional experience, his analysis often contradicted the President.
Maguire retired with three stars from the Navy. He was appointed Acting Director of the DNI in August. Prior to that, he spent less than eight months as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center. His testimony revealed that he may actually have acted legally and properly. However, questions remain as to whether he had the required contextual knowledge of the phone call. Or more importantly, whether his experience in intelligence may have been skewed by his past career in the Navy. He appeared before the House Intelligence Committee on September 26. His short tenure undermined his efficacy and may have affected his perspective. Additionally, his prior experience in the Navy may have led him to execute before fully considering the facts and the evidence.
DNI ACTIONS
The DNI Office received the whistleblower complaint on August 12. Maguire began working on August 16, and at first he refused to share the complaint with Congress because he claimed he was answering to a higher authority. He then sought outside direction. That may sound like a good idea, but his actions raise significant issues about their effects. As Rep Adam Schiff (D-CA), Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, pointed out in questioning: Acting Director Maguire sought guidance on what to do about the whistleblower complaint, sequentially from two sources:
- first from the White House and
- then from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel.
In other words, the Acting Director conferred with the two offices that were mentioned in the whistleblower’s complaint that was classified as an “urgent concern .” Consequently, Maguire’s judgement is questionable. In fact, his testimony revealed that his deference to Executive Privilege may have implicated himself in assisting in the cover-up!
DNI Testimony Grades
With that in mind, we grade his testimony based on his direct knowledge of the complaint, his role and responsibilities as Acting Director, and on whether or not his answers were forthright and honest.
He receives D grades in Assessment, Identification and Description due toe the fact that he only spent a few days in office prior to making his first significant mistakes (contacting the OLC and the AG’s office). Though he may have acted in good faith, his testimony reveals poor judgement in two key aspects. Maguire was appointed without confirmation. He has been Acting Director for less than two months. As an information source himself, he lacks credibility due to his short tenure Consequently, he is unable to speak persuasively about his office’s responsibilities.
Due to his lack of awareness, the Acting Director Maguire receives failing F grades in Priority and in Security Classification. He must recognize the impropriety of checking with both of the parties implicated in the whistleblower complaint. This directly affects the grades for assessment and identification.
Read More